Bring it + Gunfighter

[Tors]

Bring it says "[...] target must take a melee action [...]

gunfighter says "[...] may treat [...] ranged actions as having a range of meele 1"."

 

Can the target of bring it choose to not apply gunfighter, thous cirumventing the melee action (given there are no other possible melee actions on his card)?

[muraki]

If you're saying 'can I use bring it on a friendly gunfighter model and have him not punch a friend because he's choosing to not use gunfighter' I believe you are correct.  As it's a may, you can choose not to have a melee.  Kinda cheeky but that's 1/2 the fun of bring it (aka figuring out how to use it the most effectively without taking unnecessary damage).

[Corn]

I would respectfully disagree here based on the words used in both abilities.

4 hours ago, Tors said:

Bring it says "[...] target must take a melee action [...]

gunfighter says "[...] may treat [...] ranged actions as having a range of meele 1"."

Can the target of bring it choose to not apply gunfighter, thus circumventing the melee action (given there are no other possible melee actions on his card)?

Must is going to be controlling because it conveys definitiveness and compulsion.  If a model must do something, then it is compelled to do the thing if it is so able.  When Bring It is used, the model is compelled to make a melee attack unless doing so is impossible.  

May on the other hand denotes a possibility.   If a model may do something than it has the option of doing the thing.  When Gunfighter is present on a model it gives that model the possibility of using their firearm to make a melee attack at range 1.  

So if Bring It is used on a model with Gunfighter, that model is is compelled to make a melee attack if it is so able, the only exception is if it is impossible for it to make a melee attack (such as being out of range or not having any way to get one on its card).   If a model has Gunfighter, then it is possible for it to make a melee attack because the ability allows the model to make a melee attack with their firearm... so it is compelled to use that option to do so because Bring It specifies that it must.  

You could however, make sure to use Bring It from a safe distance.  Bring It has a 12 inch range, so as long as the model end's its movement +2 outside of their melee range, it will be impossible for them to make the required melee attack and it will fail.  

 

[Tors]

5 hours ago, Corn said:

I would respectfully disagree here based on the words used in both abilities.

Must is going to be controlling because it conveys definitiveness and compulsion.  If a model must do something, then it is compelled to do the thing if it is so able.  When Bring It is used, the model is compelled to make a melee attack unless doing so is impossible.  

May on the other hand denotes a possibility.   If a model may do something than it has the option of doing the thing.  When Gunfighter is present on a model it gives that model the possibility of using their firearm to make a melee attack at range 1.  

So if Bring It is used on a model with Gunfighter, that model is is compelled to make a melee attack if it is so able, the only exception is if it is impossible for it to make a melee attack (such as being out of range or not having any way to get one on its card).   If a model has Gunfighter, then it is possible for it to make a melee attack because the ability allows the model to make a melee attack with their firearm... so it is compelled to use that option to do so because Bring It specifies that it must.  

You could however, make sure to use Bring It from a safe distance.  Bring It has a 12 inch range, so as long as the model end's its movement +2 outside of their melee range, it will be impossible for them to make the required melee attack and it will fail.  

 

I didn't wrote my thoughts on this beforehand, as to not sway the option in any direction. I thought about your point before, but this reasoning is only rooted in an "oxfordian" Interpretation that 'must' trumps 'may', which isn't necessary true within the game mechanics and can have wider implications

(for example, if 'must' compells the model to take the melee action than it has to pay any associated cost and use any enableing ability, if the attack is otherwise impossible, whenever it has the chance. Like discarding a card, if challenged; Using an ice pillar as point of origin [Rasputina, Cold Snap], if otherwise out of range; Discarding Power tokens to futher reach if necessary with welding torch; and so on).

 

 

As 'bring it' doesn't change control of the model, i would tend to argue, it doesn't force the controler to chose in a specific way for any subsequent options (as obey would do). I thought there was a FAQ regarding forced choices, but i am unable to find it again.

 

In my Opinion this boils down to

A) "Must" overrules the controler-decides rulesset (p.26)

B) "Must" doesn't

I favor B  only to not open the can of worms A would bring.

[Corn]

Must trumping May isn't just "Oxfordian" its a basic tenant of rules interpretation, whether we are talking about legal contracts, role playing games, or table top miniature games. It is no different than the convention that Specific trumps General, and others.  All a miniature game is, at the end of the day, is a collection of models governed by rules, and we interpret those rules according to established convention.   Deviating from these conventions is a house rule, and not official.  These rules can also be changed via FAQs or Erratas from the developers if they don't like a certain rules interaction.  

Lets look at each of your three examples, because I don't think they propose... well any problem at all.  

1) Challenge.  "the target must discard a card to target any model other than this model with an action"  I see no reason why this cannot coexist with Bring It.  Bring It says you must declare the melee attack, and since a melee attack is also an action that requires a target, I see nothing wrong with Bring It forcing a model under the effect of Challenge to discard a card.  If anything that is smart play and comboing abilities which is in large part what a skrimish game like Malifaux is about. 

2) Cold Snap.  "This model may draw LoS and Range from ice pillar markers within aura 8" I don't see an issue here either.  The only time this would come up is if the Bring It Model targeted the Cold Snap model while standing within 1 inch of an Ice Pillar.   That is a pretty narrow use case, and if Rasputina can make a melee attack, I see no reason why Bring It would not trigger it in that narrow niche circumstance. 

3) Welding Torch. "Discard any number of power tokens, for each discarded increase the range of this action by 2".  This doesn't even use the word may, so we are already implying that may is included there.  This is a really niche circumstance that would only impact Charles Hoffman himself.   Hoffman's move is 4, so Bring It would make him move 6 inches.  Bring It has a 12 inch range, so in theory, if you caught Hoffman at near max range, you could force him to dump 3 power tokens into a melee attack.   First, I think this interaction is niche enough that it doesn't matter, and if it is a big issue, this is something that should be addressed via an FAQ or Errata.  Hoffman must make the attack per Bring It.  He can thanks to his power tokens.  I see this as more of a creative way to answer some of the things Hoffman does more than a problem with the rules.  

Check the FAQ, because remember that FAQs also generally speaking specific, and while they overrule general rules, they are frequently specific to the interaction that they address.  If you do in fact have an FAQ cite that demonstrates your point, then yes.  If you don't, you have to follow conventions of rules interpretations, as with any mini game.  

With respect to the FAQ you could try to argue #22.  Which in fairness is the one I would hang my hat on if I was arguing in the alternative.  

Quote

22. If an effect of a model has the “Once per X” restriction that says the model “may” do something, can it choose not to in order to avoid using its “Once per X” limit?

a) Yes. Effects that say a model “may” do something are optional for a player and can always be forgone should a player not wish to activate the effect. However, other “Once per X” effects that do not say “may” must be used at the first opportunity and cannot be used again within the same limit.

And emphasize the second sentence of the answer.  I would hold that this interpretation is limited to the specific question asked regarding "Once per X" limited abilities, I don't think this is a compelling answer for the situation at hand because it does not address the question of whether must trumps may which is central to this question, and it is an answer to a specific question, so is most reasonably interpreted as applying to once per X limited abilities.  

Moreover, where the Developers have found an issue, they have specifically addressed it through Errata, such as Asami's crew not permitting enemy controlled actions to add Flicker tokens.  

Anyway, to close out.  You talk about being afraid to open up a can of worms, and I would counter that you are opening up more cans of worms with your proposed interpretation, such as:

Does Gunfighter give a model a quantum engagement range such that it both is and is not engaging a model at the same time? Such as for Hidden Martyrs or One More Question?

So I reject your dichotomy if whether or not "must overrules the controller-decided ruleset".  If you use Bring It on a friendly Gunsmith... you chose to do that and thus you also chose to accept the consequences of your decision.  I also don't think any of the examples you brought up demonstrate at all that the game would break if Gun Fighter's 1 inch melee was required to be activated by a "must" order, in fact some of those examples feel wrong on a fundamental level (such as your proposal that a challenge condition would magically turn off the attack portion of Bring It).  

 

 

[muraki]

I thought about the must after posting but it doesn't change my statement. The 'must do a melee' doesn't change whether or not gunfighter procs before the bring it action is declared as gunfighter remains before that bring it check.

The only way your method would work is if during bring it, you had to recheck for valid melee actions and that's not how the flow works.

[muraki]

I think the real flow would go something like

1) before declaring bring it, the gunfighter model determes if it has an engagement range

2) bring it is declared

3) bring it succeeds, model is pulled towards and does / doesn't do a melee' based on what was declared in step 1

Theres no rule to recheck / redetermine engagement mid action step, as if there was it would mess up stuff like determining engagement for guns / interacts / etc where a gunfighter model could 'change his mind' and force things to fail mid action.

[solkan]

2 hours ago, muraki said:

I think the real flow would go something like

1) before declaring bring it, the gunfighter model determes if it has an engagement range

2) bring it is declared

3) bring it succeeds, model is pulled towards and does / doesn't do a melee' based on what was declared in step 1

Theres no rule to recheck / redetermine engagement mid action step, as if there was it would mess up stuff like determining engagement for guns / interacts / etc where a gunfighter model could 'change his mind' and force things to fail mid action.

There's no reason for Step 1, the engagement range of the gunfighter model is irrelevant.  (There is not even a requirement that a model engage the target of its melee actions...  That's sort of important for the models that can punch buried models, too.)

The sequence of events is entirely simple:

1.  Bring It is declared.

2.  If Bring It succeeds, the model moves a distance using a non-Walk effect, and then takes a targeting the provoking model.

There is no principle in the M3E rules where a model is forced to make a choice in advance.  The words "must" and "if able" in the action are essentially redundant:

• 'if able' is redundant because the action resolution rules skip over effects that cannot be resolved
• 'must' is redundant because by the action resolution rules state that every effect is resolved in sequence.  In other words, the default for everything is that it must happen.

Why does the action say 'must ... if able', then?  For emphasis--if you see the word 'must' you have a reminder that the effect is not optional and that the word 'may' was not used.

For the record, consider the related scenario:

A model with two melee actions is subject to Bring It.  The model's movement brings it within range of one of its melee actions but not the other.  Can the model use the out of range melee action to satisfy Bring It?  When it does so, it will have no valid, in range target in the targeting step and the action will fail, resulting in a resolved melee action and the satisfaction of the action resolution rules.

Is there a requirement that the model choose the melee action that could have succeeded instead of the one that is out of range?  No, there isn't.

 

[Tors]

13 hours ago, Corn said:

Does Gunfighter give a model a quantum engagement range such that it both is and is not engaging a model at the same time? Such as for Hidden Martyrs or One More Question?  

That is exactly what gunfighter does, yes. You have to decide each time and can choose either way. This isn't influenced from the question at hand.

Regarding the rest, there are other welding torchers besides Hoffman and other cases, when Melee Actions have to meet certain criteria before beeing eligible. I just didn't dug any deeper. 

But as neither of us have arguments based on concret rules text or precedents i agree to disagree.

[Tors]

8 hours ago, solkan said:

For the record, consider the related scenario:

A model with two melee actions is subject to Bring It.  The model's movement brings it within range of one of its melee actions but not the other.  Can the model use the out of range melee action to satisfy Bring It?  When it does so, it will have no valid, in range target in the targeting step and the action will fail, resulting in a resolved melee action and the satisfaction of the action resolution rules.

Is there a requirement that the model choose the melee action that could have succeeded instead of the one that is out of range?  No, there isn't.

Just to clarify, in your scenario you use the normal rules Text for "bring it" and conclude that the target model can choose the out-of-range Melee action regardless?

[TheUnseemlyOne]

2 hours ago, Tors said:

Just to clarify, in your scenario you use the normal rules Text for "bring it" and conclude that the target model can choose the out-of-range Melee action regardless?

It is allowed to declare an action that has no legal target. Step 3 for resolving actions on page 23 says if an action requires a target, but doesn’t have a legal target, the action fails and you skip steps 4-6. So you could declare an attack with a shorter melee range, specifically so the action would fail. 

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

11 hours ago, solkan said:

Is there a requirement that the model choose the melee action that could have succeeded instead of the one that is out of range?  No, there isn't.

 

There is. The “must” also includes targeting the model that used Bring It. If the target doesn’t have a large enough engagement range to target the Bring It model, no attack action is taken. In your example, the target model must take the attack action that is able to target the Bring It model or take no action at all.

[TheUnseemlyOne]

46 minutes ago, PiersonsMuppeteer said:

There is. The “must” also includes targeting the model that used Bring It. If the target doesn’t have a large enough engagement range to target the Bring It model, no attack action is taken. In your example, the target model must take the attack action that is able to target the Bring It model or take no action at all.

That doesn’t really follow with the resolving action rules though. Declaring the action is step 1 and selecting the target is step 3. You’re interpretation would have the model checking for a valid target before or during step 1.

It could be argued that the last bit of Bring It saying “…targeting this model, if able” just means that the model using Bring It must be the target of declared action if it’s a legal target. If it’s not a valid target, the action would fail as described in step 3. 

[Corn]

I think its worth quoting the Action Rules here, which state in relevant part on page 23 the order of operations that we need to follows.  

Quote

 

Step 1: Declare the Action Announce what Action the model is taking. Some Actions have Special Restrictions. If these restrictions aren’t met, the Action cannot be declared.

Step 2: Pay any Costs If the Action has any costs in italics, they must be paid now, and are considered paid when declaring the Action. If the costs are not paid, the Action fails; skip steps 3, 4, and 5. Costs that reference an Action’s target must instead be paid as part of declaring the target (step 3). Otherwise, the model cannot be targeted.

Step 3: Targeting In addition to Special Restrictions and costs, some Actions have targeting restrictions also written in italics and restrict the Action in some way, such as limiting the Action to targeting Construct models only or targeting Scheme Markers. If the Action requires a target, the target must be declared at this step. The target must be within the Action’s range as well as within LoS of the model taking the Action, unless specified otherwise. If an Action has no legal target, it fails; skip steps 4, 5, and 6. A model may not target itself with an Attack Action. If an Action requires a model to choose an object (model, marker, etc.) the object is not treated as being targeted and ignores any effects from targeting. Unless otherwise mentioned, every Action with a target must target a single model.

Step 4: Perform Duels If the Action requires a duel, the model now performs the duel (pg. 10). If the initiating model does not succeed on the duel, the Action fails and Step 5 of resolving an Action is not performed. Some Actions have additional effects that affect an Action’s duel (such as ignoring Concealment). These effects are listed next to the Action in italics. If no duel was required, then the Action is automatically successful.

Step 5: Apply Results The model performs the Action’s effects, as stated on the card, in the order they are listed. If any of an Action’s effects cannot be resolved, they are ignored. A model is considered to be resolving an Action during every part of the “Resolving Actions” process. For instance, if a model was in Hazardous Terrain (pg. 37) during any part of the “Resolving Actions” process, the effects of the Hazardous Terrain are applied to the model after the Action resolves. The most common effect of an Action is damage, which is explained on page 24.

Step 6: After Resolving Any effects that happen after an Action is resolved, including any After Resolving and After Succeeding Triggers happen at this time. Remember: Triggers that do not specify a timing are assumed to be After Succeeding Triggers.

 

Applying these rules to an example of Ironsides using Bring It on a Gunsmith, we come to the following.  

1.1 Ironsides declares Bring It. 

1.2 Bring It does not have any costs.

1.3 Ironsides declares the Gunsmith as the target.  Checks range and line of sight, the action fails if these are not met. 

1.4 Duels are performed, The Gunsmith elects to relent (pg 10) and Ironsides flips.   Ironsides needs to flip or cheat a 6 to hit the target number, assuming this is the case, she declares any triggers, and we move on. 

1.5  We apply the results, in the order they are listed.  So first the Gunsmith moves move +2 towards ironsides.  Then we come to the sentence in question.  "Then, the target must make a melee action targeting this model, if able. [neg damage flip, no triggers]. 

This is the step we are at.  

The language we are resolving in bring it specifically says that "the model must make a melee action targeting this model, if able."  So we look at the gunsmith's card.  Is the gunsmith "able" to make a melee action?  The answer is yes.  Because Gunfighter states that the Gunsmith "may treat its ranged action as a melee action with range 1."  So the gunsmith is able, and thus must make the melee action targeting Ironsides.  Any other interpretation explicitly ignores the words as written on the Bring It Ability.  

2.1 The Gunsmith declares Custom Fire Arm 1 inch melee, because it must make the attack that it is able to make.  

2.2 Custom Firearm does not have any costs.

2.3 The Gunsmith declares Ironsides as a target, and checks range and line of sight, the action fails if these are not met. 

2.4 Duels are performed.   In this case, you likely do not want to relent, so that you can cheat the attack to miss.   No triggers are declared on this attack pursuant to Bring It.  

2.5 If the attack hits, we resolve the results and an additional neg modifier is added pursuant to Bring It.  

2.6 There are no after resolving effects.  

1.6 Bring it has no after resolving effects.  

So this is how the rules as written apply to bring it when we run it through the Action Rules on page 23.   Going through this in more detail, I want to revisit and revise a few of my prior interpretations.  

Welding Torch cannot be compelled to spend power tokens.  Because costs are declared prior to determining targeting, those can be paid or not paid prior to declaring a target.  Bring it cannot compel Welding Torch to spend power tokens and it will fail on targeting.  

Cold Snap can be compelled to make the strike if the target is within 1 inch of an ice pillar but outside of 1 inch of Raspy.  This is because Cold Snap does not have any costs to declare it.  This is because when determining range an line of sight, Raspy may draw them from the Ice Piller, so Ironsides is within range and line of sight of Raspy's cold snap whenever she is within 1 inch of an ice pillar, so it passes the range and line of sight check and proceeds to duels. 

A Challenged model can be compelled to discard a card.  This is because Challenge adds a cost that "references the actions target" so it is paid during the declaring a target step.  So Challenge will reach step 3, and must discard the card as part of declaring the Bring It Model as the target.  

Finally, for a Model with multiple engagement ranges.  I'm on the fence here, mostly due to the targeting language being unclear.  Here is what I mean. 

Quote

If the Action requires a target, the target must be declared at this step. The target must be within the Action’s range as well as within LoS of the model taking the Action, unless specified otherwise. If an Action has no legal target, it fails

This is poorly worded because it raises the question of "can a model target something that is beyond range and line of sight?".  We know that "if there is no legal target it fails" which is somewhat odd in a game with premeasuring where you presumably always know when something is a legal target or not.  We know that the target "must" be within the Action's range and LoS.  So the question then becomes can you declare an action against an illegal target?  a) If you can't, because the target is illegal, then you have to choose the melee attack that can target Ironsides.  b) If you can than you can target an illegal target, you essentially could "discover" that Tony is an "illegal" target at step 3, and cause the melee attack to fail.  I tend to agree more with option a, as b in this case is typically more applicable to games that lack premeasuring (such as bolt action), where the intent of the rules is to catch players out by failing to guess distance appropriately.  

 

 

[TheUnseemlyOne]

12 minutes ago, Corn said:

The language we are resolving in bring it specifically says that "the model must make a melee action targeting this model, if able."   

Any other interpretation explicitly ignores the words as written on the Bring It Ability.   

The issue with this, is that the “if able” part of Bring It could be read to be specific to the targeting requirement.

I think the point is fairly clear if you just change the emphasis to "the model must make a melee action targeting this model, if able."

This would effectively add a condition step that the Bring It model must be the declared target during step 3. 

23 minutes ago, Corn said:

Welding Torch cannot be compelled to spend power tokens.  Because costs are declared prior to determining targeting, those can be paid or not paid prior to declaring a target.  Bring it cannot compel Welding Torch to spend power tokens and it will fail on targeting.  

I agree that a model can’t be compelled to pay a cost. But I don’t see how that’s a problem. The Bring It model “..must be the target, if able” but nothing explicitly requires that the action not fail before the targeting step.

Essentially my opinion is that Bring It basically adds a requirement during step 3 that the Bring It model must be the declared target. If it’s not a legal target at this point, the action just fails. 

[TheUnseemlyOne]

43 minutes ago, Corn said:

This is poorly worded because it raises the question of "can a model target something that is beyond range and line of sight?".  We know that "if there is no legal target it fails" which is somewhat odd in a game with premeasuring where you presumably always know when something is a legal target or not.  We know that the target "must" be within the Action's range and LoS.  So the question then becomes can you declare an action against an illegal target?  a) If you can't, because the target is illegal, then you have to choose the melee attack that can target Ironsides.  b) If you can than you can target an illegal target, you essentially could "discover" that Tony is an "illegal" target at step 3, and cause the melee attack to fail.  I tend to agree more with option a, as b in this case is typically more applicable to games that lack premeasuring (such as bolt action), where the intent of the rules is to catch players out by failing to guess distance appropriately.  

 

I disagree that this is necessarily poorly worded. For that to be the case, we’d need to know that knowingly declaring an action that could fail was unintended.

Also, you don’t declare illegal targets, you check for legal targets to declare. I believe this is an important distinction. 

[Corn]

50 minutes ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

The issue with this, is that the “if able” part of Bring It could be read to be specific to the targeting requirement.

I think the point is fairly clear if you just change the emphasis to "the model must make a melee action targeting this model, if able."

This would effectively add a condition step that the Bring It model must be the declared target during step 3. 

I agree that a model can’t be compelled to pay a cost. But I don’t see how that’s a problem. The Bring It model “..must be the target, if able” but nothing explicitly requires that the action not fail before the targeting step.

Essentially my opinion is that Bring It basically adds a requirement during step 3 that the Bring It model must be the declared target. If it’s not a legal target at this point, the action just fails. 

How are you coming to this conclusion?  There is a comma there and it tells us how to read it and split the clauses. 

(the model must make a melee action targeting this model) is then modified by (if able).  The clauses are determined by the placement of the comma.  Basically, you are implying that we should violate very basic grammar rules to limit the "if able" to only apply to a portion of the clause (in this case targeting).   The rules are written in English and as such rules of English grammar apply to their interpretation.   

This sentence is not ambiguous... and I've seen some ambiguous sentences in miniature wargaming.  If a model is able to (make a melee action targeting this model), it must.   

What basis are you using to divide up the first clause? 

44 minutes ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

Also, you don’t declare illegal targets, you check for legal targets to declare. I believe this is an important distinction. 

That is the confusion i have, because Bring It specifies what the target must be.  The target must be the Bring It model.  So if you can't declare against an illegal target, than you must choose the attack that can hit that model.  If you can declare against an illegal target, you can declare the shorter attack, causing it to fail at step three.  In my opinion it would make more sense if selecting a target was part of step 1, and you needed a legal target to declare an action.  But the rules aren't written like that, which is why its confusing.  

 

[TheUnseemlyOne]

9 minutes ago, Corn said:

How are you coming to this conclusion.  There is a comma there and it tells us how to read it and split the clauses. 

(the model must make a melee action targeting this model) is then modified by (if able).  The clauses are determined by the placement of the comma.  Basically, you are implying that we should violate very basic grammar rules to limit the "if able" to only apply to a portion of the clause (in this case targeting).   The rules are written in English and as such rules of English grammar apply to their interpretation.   

This sentence is not ambiguous... and I've seen some ambiguous sentences in miniature wargaming.  If a model is able to (make a melee action targeting this model), it must.   

What basis are you using to divide up the first clause?   To put this another way, I would agree with your interpretation if Bring It was worded as follows:  "the model must make a melee action, if it is able to target this model." But... its not worded like that.

I’m not terribly interested in an argument on the formal and informal uses of commas. It can be read that way, particularly when you take it in the context of the targeting rules. 
 

13 minutes ago, Corn said:

That is the confusion i have, because Bring It specifies what the target must be.  The target must be the Bring It model.  So if you can't declare against an illegal target, than you must choose the attack that can hit that model.  If you can declare against an illegal target, you can declare the shorter attack, causing it to fail at step three.  In my opinion it would make more sense if selecting a target was part of step 1, and you needed a legal target to declare an action.  But the rules aren't written like that, which is why its confusing.  

 

I think you’re trying to read too much into something that’s not there. At step 3, the Bring It model being the target is an added requirement as well as range and LOS. If you can’t meet them, the action fails as described in step 3.

You check for a legal target. If there is no legal target, the action fails. There is no declaring an illegal target.

The steps are: 

1: Declare Action 

2: Pay Costs

3:Targeting (no legal target)

Skip 4-6 because the action fails

What you seem to be suggesting  would amount to…

1: Declare Action 

2: Pay Costs

3:Targeting

3.5: Return to step 1 and take the other attack with a longer range because the attack would fail

There’s a clear set of conditions for an action to fail and you can meet them accidentally or intentionally. 

 

 

[Corn]

15 minutes ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

I’m not terribly interested in an argument on the formal and informal uses of commas. It can be read that way, particularly when you take it in the context of the targeting rules. 
 

So... your counter argument about why the clause should be arbitrarily broken up basically boils down to... "I don't care about grammar".  The sentence is constructed in English, just because you can't be bothered to care about how it is constructed doesn't mean you can interpret it any way you feel like it when we are talking about what the "rules as written" are.  How the language is constructed is integral to RAW.  

What I am saying is that there is no indication whatsoever in the sentence that would instruct us to read the sentence in the way you are splitting it up.   Whether or not you care about commas and clauses in the English language doesn't make them any less important when determining the rules as written when they are written in English.  

EDIT:  As I said, I'm a bit shakey on the Models with multiple engagement ranges, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the main question regarding gunfighter.  

[TheUnseemlyOne]

12 minutes ago, Corn said:

So... your counter argument about why the clause should be arbitrarily broken up basically boils down to... "I don't care about grammar". 

No. I’m not interested in a pedantic grammar argument, especially when it’s not particularly relevant. It was probably the least relevant thing I had to say and I find it telling that that’s what you latched on to  

 

14 minutes ago, Corn said:

EDIT:  As I said, I'm a bit shakey on the Models with multiple engagement ranges, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the main question regarding gunfighter.  

The issue with Gunfighter comes down to  timing when the model treats the attack as having a melee range. If it doesn’t have a melee range during step 1, it’s not a valid attack to declare. I’m not convinced there’s any reason you can force the model to use Gunfighter with Bring It. 

[Corn]

You can dismiss grammar as pedantic all you want, but at the end of the day it governs the construction of language, and the words as written are governed by language.  It is disingenuous to dismiss grammar as pedantic when we are discussing RAW and how the sentences that make up the rules are written has everything to do with arriving at the correct answer.  

The rule as written is that "(The model must make a melee attack targeting this model), if able."  So to determine the interaction with gunfighter we ask the simple question;  Can the model make a melee attack targeting this model?  It can, so it must.  Nothing more to it.  

The reason I "latched onto" this point, is because it was literally the only point you made which could rebut this straightforward reading of the rules.  It appears to be the hill that you have to die on, because otherwise you can't avoid answering yes to the question of "can the model make a melee attack against this model?".  Everything else you've said is largely superfluous to this point as it requires us to essentially agree to read the rule contrary to the way it is written.   (I also didn't really address the point about models with multiple engagement ranges because I can go either way on that one, and its not what the original question was, and it was already confusing enough with two logic chains going on simultaneously, so I was reigning back to the original question regarding gunfighter).  

If you don't agree with the RAW, your group is absolutely free to house rule it however you please.  If Wyrd feels that this is not the RAI, they are free to errata or FAQ it.  But you have to address the way Wyrd chose to write the sentence if you are going to argue that the rules as written aren't as I say.  

[TheUnseemlyOne]

49 minutes ago, Corn said:

You can dismiss grammar as pedantic all you want, but at the end of the day it governs the construction of language, and the words as written are governed by language.  It is disingenuous to dismiss grammar as pedantic when we are discussing RAW and how the sentences that make up the rules are written has everything to do with arriving at the correct answer.  

The rule as written is that "(The model must make a melee attack targeting this model), if able."  So to determine the interaction with gunfighter we ask the simple question;  Can the model make a melee attack targeting this model?  It can, so it must.  Nothing more to it.  

The reason I "latched onto" this point, is because it was literally the only point you made which could rebut this straightforward reading of the rules.  It appears to be the hill that you have to die on, because otherwise you can't avoid answering yes to the question of "can the model make a melee attack against this model?".  Everything else you've said is largely superfluous to this point as it requires us to essentially agree to read the rule contrary to the way it is written.   (I also didn't really address the point about models with multiple engagement ranges because I can go either way on that one, and its not what the original question was, and it was already confusing enough with two logic chains going on simultaneously, so I was reigning back to the original question regarding gunfighter).  

If you don't agree with the RAW, your group is absolutely free to house rule it however you please.  If Wyrd feels that this is not the RAI, they are free to errata or FAQ it.  But you have to address the way Wyrd chose to write the sentence if you are going to argue that the rules as written aren't as I say.  

So the entire conversation around the resolving actions steps is irrelevant then?

[Corn]

57 minutes ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

So the entire conversation around the resolving actions steps is irrelevant then?

Of course not, I covered the applicable rules and analysis here in great detail with the correct conclusion.

 

[TheUnseemlyOne]

20 minutes ago, Corn said:

Of course not, I covered the applicable rules and analysis here in great detail with the correct conclusion.

Yeah, I saw that and responded to it.  Your response was to not respond to what I said, scroll back multiple posts before that and respond to something completely different.  You’re coming across as intentionally obtuse at this point. You can say assert that you’re correct and pat yourself on the back if you really want.  I don’t think there’s really anything left to say about it. 

[Corn]

Your response to the Action chain in applying bring it was the gramatical challenge.  You didn't raise any other points in my breakdown of how the rules apply to gunfighter.

You say that you think it adds a "targeting requirement during step 3 only" but you have no language to support your assertion... so it is not RAW.

[PiersonsMuppeteer]

7 hours ago, TheUnseemlyOne said:

It could be argued that the last bit of Bring It saying “…targeting this model, if able” just means that the model using Bring It must be the target of declared action if it’s a legal target. If it’s not a valid target, the action would fail as described in step 3. 

No, it couldn't. You can't just split clauses. 

If the target model is able to declare a melee action that can target the Bring It model, it must. Otherwise, it doesn't take any action.